citizen VS Government -1777 VS 2007

[Tokugawa]

The second amendment, stated the right of citizens to be armed, without any restrictions. In the 1700's, a musket was the standard arm, and an army would have muzzle loading artillery. The apparent aim was to allow equipage of the citizenry to be on par with the army. Taken in context , this would mean today the civilian population would have access to machine guns, rocket launchers, tanks, helicopter gunships etc.
The disparity of force between the Gov. and the citizenry is a order of magnitude greater than in the 1700's. The Gov. can wipe a city off the globe, and quibbles about handguns!

Comments?

 

[geekWithA.45]

Comments?

At that point, the world was just getting used to the idea that the King didn't own you, you did.

Collectivist Leftism, with it's explicit premise that "society" owns you hadn't really been invented yet. Collectivism's great, great grandpappy, Jean-Jacques Rousseau's concepts hadn't yet been put into play in the French Revolution.

 

[CornCod]

The post-WWII era has proven to be a time where you can't rule a people as a colony or puppet-state anymore. The US government is learning this fact in Iraq right now. Russia learned it in Afghanistan and Israel in Lebanon (twice!). We are entering the age of "fourth generation warfare" where "non-state actors" ( we usually call them 'guerillas', 'terrorists' and 'insurgents') are gaining the upper hand. Any large group of young, gutsy guys with AK's, RPG's and a few radio-controlled bombs can make life miserable for ANY high-tech, modern, conventional army.

Now when in comes to civil war in a large technological country, the important thing to remember is that these countries are usually controlled by tiny oligarchies. In the US, these oligarchies are composed mainly of big money people. These groups control the press, major institutions and academia, so they are able to essentially brainwash the majority of people with opinions that fit their purposes (some 'liberal" and some 'conservative'). A civil war under those circumstances is very unlikely.

 

[mnrivrat]

Realisticaly the costs involved with having weapons on par with the present standing military would prevent any real threat to the military being faced with anything nearly equal in ability, and owned by civilians.

Progressive technoligy that could not be foreseen by the drafters of our government in the late 1700's , and which does bring about debate regarding where the top is when discussing todays weapons in the hands of the civilian population.
In principle however there is little doubt that the drafters of the bill of rights had in mind a somewhat equal capability between standing military and civilian weapon ownership.

Citizens at that time were in fact considered part of the militia and much debate insued regarding the need for a standing army - or the desire for one.

Besides the military aspects however, the 2nd amendment was about protecting individual rights of citizens, and that included their right to self defense.

 

[ctdonath]

Among other factors, and not meaning to limit anything...

Congress has declared me, a 39-yo able-bodied male not in the National Guard, a member of the US militia. Per the Selective Service System, I can be called up for service. Being 39 and not 19, should I be called up for any reason (insert scenario here), I have reason to believe there would be only poor equipment available and little time to train. The government, at various levels, has decided to entirely neglect training or equipping me during peacetime, and would likely be unable to under duress. As I obviously have a very personal interest in this, and the Founding Fathers did too, both in 1777 and in 2007 there is clearly an individual right for me to obtain (at minimum) standard modern military weaponry and training to match.

Any attempt to deny the individual right to modern military arms, starting with the M4, harms both myself (by hindering my ability to perform in mortal combat) and my nation (by hindering the ability of the aggregate militia to effectively fight).

As for discussions of weapons inconceivable in 1777: let's start with the M4 - it (or the AK-74, and assorted relatives of both) are simply the modern standard not outrageously different from early rifles. Next consider other weapons not having orders of magnitude more orders of magnitude more power ... .50BMGs, RPGs, and artillery are not mind-blowingly far beyond what our Founding Fathers personally owned. When we can personally buy those with little or difficulty, then we can consider moving the discussion into the WMD realm; few who go there early in the discussion have any interest in securing a reasonable modern interpretation of RKBA.

Wake me up when I can buy a select-fire M4.

 

[tepin]

I cannot afford an $800,000.00 dollar, one-hundred megaton nuclear bomb or the airplane to fly it somewhere. So, I am happy with my Kimber and I don’t much worry about my ability to fend off the US military should they attack my townhouse.

As for handgun control, I don’t want any. I think politicians use the topic as a forum when there is nothing more important to talk about. I don’t know the exact numbers off the top of my head but I know that more people die in auto accidents than they do in shootings so why don’t we ban automobiles? Anyone that thinks it’s the gun that murders and not the individual holding the gun is just a complete idiot. The 911 highjackers used box knives to facilitate the death of 3000 people. And to think we actually elect these people to represent us!!

 

[Zen21Tao]

Progressive technoligy that could not be foreseen by the drafters of our government in the late 1700's , and which does bring about debate regarding where the top is when discussing todays weapons in the hands of the civilian population.

I just can't swallow this argument (Founding Fathers didn't have missles and machine guns) when antis present it. When the Founding Fathers penned the BOR they also didn't know the extent to which "freedon of speech" or "freedom of expression" would be applied according to the future's unforseen social changes. My response to antis is "yes, the founding fathers didn't have machine guns and they also didn't have NeoNazis and Gay Pride Parades either. You demand the First Amendment be applied to today's society to protect the speech and expression of these groups while demanding the 2nd Amendment NOT be applied to the military arms of today's society. You Sir (or Ma'am) are a hippocrite."

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Right of the People

The Second Amendment is about the right of the people, as individuals.

The right of the Person to be armed in a manner consistent with current .mil standards would seem to cover pretty much anything an individual can carry.

When you get into crew-served weapons, it can be debated that this is more of a state thing.

Clearly, though, anything an individual solder is expected to carry (or possibly two) is the type of arm that one's militia ought be trained for and in possession of.

Tanks and helicopters and stuff really do require crew support and advanced logistics. Some kind of organization is needed.

I would contend that anything an individual can carry into combat is valid "arms" in the context of the Second Amendment.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Like Zen21Tao pointed out, it will always amaze me how people will push the First Amendment to the fullest even when it’s harmful to others while dismissing the Second Amendment quite easily. The hypocreaceae is mind numbing and sickening too.

Our Country is in a war right now and I'm not talking about Iraq. There are people out there who want us dead just because we believe in freedom, fun and equality for women. This is a war for our very existence just like WWII was. The battles are different and the lines are unclear but make no mistake, it is for our existence as we know it.

It's time for more good citizens of this Nation to be armed, not less. Too bad the Lefties and Antis won't believe this unless something terrible happens. By then it will be too late for them because the killers don't care if you're left or right, they just know you aren't like them so you will die. I just hope to hell out Elected Officials stop fighting with each other and start fighting our enemies for the good of the Nation, not the good of their political career.

“We The People” need to be armed just as much in 2007 as we did in 1777 or maybe even more.

 

[xd9fan]

Collectivism enjoys support from both parties.....and Individual Liberty is falling behind. All is not lost......but the Baby Boomers sure like Big Govt.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Baby Boomers

Show of hands.

Who here is a boomer? (* Hand *)

Who here likes big govt? (* . . . cricket . . . *)

Shall I make some sweeping statements about Gen X? Gen Y?

Hello?

Dare I say, it's probably not your birthdate that determines how you see your responsibilities and your relationship with government.

Marx was not a boomer. A lot of people who buy into his crap are not boomers.

Lies and intellectual dishonesty have no "sell by" date.

Neither does the truth.

 

[eastwood44mag]

I wonder why the elected officials are so afraid of us having guns.

Hmm....